M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

15,300 imposed u/s 271 AAA which is not only bad in law but also against the facts and circumstances of the case. ii. That the addition made, based on which penalty was imposed, was protective and not substantive. i. The Learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 imposed

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

15,300 imposed u/s 271 AAA which is not only bad in law but also against the facts and circumstances of the case. ii. That the addition made, based on which penalty was imposed, was protective and not substantive. i. The Learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 imposed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

15,300 imposed u/s 271 AAA which is not only bad in law but also against the facts and circumstances of the case. ii. That the addition made, based on which penalty was imposed, was protective and not substantive. i. The Learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 imposed

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

15,300 imposed u/s 271 AAA which is not only bad in law but also against the facts and circumstances of the case. ii. That the addition made, based on which penalty was imposed, was protective and not substantive. i. The Learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 imposed

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

15,300 imposed u/s 271 AAA which is not only bad in law but also against the facts and circumstances of the case. ii. That the addition made, based on which penalty was imposed, was protective and not substantive. i. The Learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 imposed

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen Sethi and Dr Rakesh Gupta, who appeared for some of the assesses, also adopted the arguments of Mr Vohra and emphasized that the expenditure must be actual and cannot be computed on the basis of some formula as stipulated under

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen Sethi and Dr Rakesh Gupta, who appeared for some of the assesses, also adopted the arguments of Mr Vohra and emphasized that the expenditure must be actual and cannot be computed on the basis of some formula as stipulated under

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen Sethi and Dr Rakesh Gupta, who appeared for some of the assesses, also adopted the arguments of Mr Vohra and emphasized that the expenditure must be actual and cannot be computed on the basis of some formula as stipulated under

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen Sethi and Dr Rakesh Gupta, who appeared for some of the assesses, also adopted the arguments of Mr Vohra and emphasized that the expenditure must be actual and cannot be computed on the basis of some formula as stipulated under

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen Sethi and Dr Rakesh Gupta, who appeared for some of the assesses, also adopted the arguments of Mr Vohra and emphasized that the expenditure must be actual and cannot be computed on the basis of some formula as stipulated under

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen Sethi and Dr Rakesh Gupta, who appeared for some of the assesses, also adopted the arguments of Mr Vohra and emphasized that the expenditure must be actual and cannot be computed on the basis of some formula as stipulated under

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen Sethi and Dr Rakesh Gupta, who appeared for some of the assesses, also adopted the arguments of Mr Vohra and emphasized that the expenditure must be actual and cannot be computed on the basis of some formula as stipulated under

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen Sethi and Dr Rakesh Gupta, who appeared for some of the assesses, also adopted the arguments of Mr Vohra and emphasized that the expenditure must be actual and cannot be computed on the basis of some formula as stipulated under

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen Sethi and Dr Rakesh Gupta, who appeared for some of the assesses, also adopted the arguments of Mr Vohra and emphasized that the expenditure must be actual and cannot be computed on the basis of some formula as stipulated under

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen Sethi and Dr Rakesh Gupta, who appeared for some of the assesses, also adopted the arguments of Mr Vohra and emphasized that the expenditure must be actual and cannot be computed on the basis of some formula as stipulated under

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen Sethi and Dr Rakesh Gupta, who appeared for some of the assesses, also adopted the arguments of Mr Vohra and emphasized that the expenditure must be actual and cannot be computed on the basis of some formula as stipulated under

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen Sethi and Dr Rakesh Gupta, who appeared for some of the assesses, also adopted the arguments of Mr Vohra and emphasized that the expenditure must be actual and cannot be computed on the basis of some formula as stipulated under

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed under section 14A provided it was otherwise allowable under sections 15 to 59 of the said Act. Mr Satyen Sethi and Dr Rakesh Gupta, who appeared for some of the assesses, also adopted the arguments of Mr Vohra and emphasized that the expenditure must be actual and cannot be computed on the basis of some formula as stipulated under